Somewhere I hear Vadar saying, "I find your lack of faith disturbing...";-)
PGP uses a passphrase, right? What are the chances this guy's passphrase--now remember he's not only dumb enough to make and locally store child porn, but he doesn't even clear out his browser history--what are the chances his passphrase contains more than, say, 40 bits of entropy?
You don't have to break RSA or El Gamal or IDEA or Blowfish or whateverTF he was using...just get his keyring and bruteforce the passphrase. Or, if he's just using the symmetric cipher, do the same thing.
4096-bit RSA over Blowfish is pretty damn strong. Too bad the passphrase is so weak! It's like having that huge shield door from NORAD on your house, except with a full-size doggie door built into the front.
Just like the presence of a gun during a robbery lifts the crime to armed robbery, the presence of encryption ought to imply not only that the culprit intended to commit the crime but also intended to cover it up as well.
I see what you're saying...but there are several flaws in this reasoning, both theoretical and practical.
There was no evidence PGP was being used to encrypt anything, or that he was even planning to do that.
The inclusion of PGP in the evidence is intended purely to sway the judge and jurors and presents no real information about the case. This is Cheating. It's like when a newspaper needs a story to be more sensationalistic, they say things like, "Aside from two pounds of marijuana, two guns were recovered from the residence." And then they don't tell you it was just a 22 rifle and a pellet gun.
Everyone has strong crypto on their machine. So by your reasoning, every time a crime involves a computer (which is going to be practically every planned crime these days), it should automatically carry some sort of conspiracy charge. This is pointless, just like saying the presense of envelopes in one's house obviously shows that the owner planned to hide his actions when mailing his co-conspirators.
Telling people that crypto is bad is also Extremely Bad, as attested to by so many other posts today. Crypto is good. Just like we allow a child pornographer to mail his wares undetected in an envelope, we allow him to email them encrypted. The alternative is simply worse, and we choose the lesser of the two evils. Smart people know this; jurors are more easily swayed, as I mentioned in point #2.
(And for the record, when it comes to child pornographers, there can be no punishment too severe.)
Someone mentioned the problems of having a (scuba) tank of compressed air sitting in the hot sun...yes, it can be a problem, obviously, if the air heats and expands above the pressure rating of the tank. I am assuming they thought of this and would make the tank adequately strong. (With scuba, the shop fills your tank to the limit, and then the hot sun gives you another 1000 psi and your burst disc goes. This is less than the five-thirds working pressure they push your tank to when they hydro it--I'm sure the tanks on the cars would have some kind of overpressure relief like a burst disc.)
The French air car article points out, "In the case of an accident with air tank breakage, there would be no explosion or shattering because the tanks are not metallic but made of glass fibre. The tanks would crack longitudinally, and the air would escape, causing a strong buzzing sound with no dangerous factor."
Well.
It's great to know that it's a carbon fiber tank so it won't turn into a screaming cloud of schrapnel, but isn't there another issue at work here?
Now, I don't know exactly where on that tiny car the tank is, but I'd assume it's under the seat someplace.
The volume of that car is what...two cubic meters? What happens when you instantly put 90 cubic meters of air inside it? (Or under it?)
Have a look at this rather larger car for an example. Look, ma! No fragmentation thanks to a steel tank, but all that air introduced to an enclosed space jiffy-pops a car like a cheap paper cup.
I'm more than willing to admit there's more to carbon-fiber tanks than I know. Maybe there's some property that prevents them from releasing all that energy in less than, say, 10 seconds, no matter how badly crushed. But I'm officially skeptical.
They say there's enough energy in a scuba tank to lift a hook-and-ladder fire truck 20 meters in the air. That's exactly the sort of energy I don't want released near me in a short timeframe. Gasoline is good in comparison because it doesn't tend to do this when the tank is ruptured.
Then again, a compressed air tank explosion might be just what I need to get ahead in today's Bay Area traffic. Up yours, Fastrak!
Was the sculpture a "work-for-hire", I wonder? Wouldn't the city then own the copyright? And, if so, wouldn't it count as "public"?
But let's say that the artist retained copyright himself (herself?). It's my understanding from Bert Krages' book Legal Handbook for Photographers, that images that substantially reproduce the sculpture are derivative works, and therefore are subject to copyright restriction.
Though not entirely clear, Krages seems to be saying merely taking the picture could be a violation of copyright in these cases.
However, if you take a picture that doesn't substantially reproduce the work, then you're probably safe. Let's say you take a picture of the reflection of the Bean, but not the edges. The original work is not even shown, so I'm pretty sure that wouldn't count as a violation.
Also, you could take a picture of the surrounding area where the Bean is only a small part of the picture. This might also be non-infringing.
Of course, it's all a matter of the always-gray interpretation of Fair Use.
Also, look at it from the position of the sculpter. You make a sculpture, and then people start taking picture of it and selling them without you seeing a dime. Sounds a little unfair, right? Well, in this case, it goes back to my original question: who owns the copyright on the Bean?
When it comes to visualizing concepts, a well-placed interactive animation can beat stills-on-paper virtually every time.
Try to imagine the future of school text books. You think it's going to only be a bunch of static graphs and equations? Not a chance. It'll be "enter some test numbers here" or "slide this bar back and forth and see what happens to this graph."
And sometimes the hard equation work does get in the way of seeing the concepts, which are no less important. I know a lot of students tend to focus on how to do a math problem instead of what the math problem is, since you get graded on how well you do them!
Pencil and paper? I'll bet that no matter what software the questioner uses, pencil and paper will also be put to good use crunching equations away just like we all have done. You can rest easy knowing that, I hope. Computers are not a replacement for everything, after all.
But to say, "Why not use pencil and paper like I did and forget about this software nonsense?" is to ignore an extremely valuable learning tool that has only recently started to be utilized.
I like: no storage limits and effective use of "tag" keywords to mark photos, as well as the general usage of the site (photostreams, comments, and so on.)
The comments are encouraging for an amateur photographer like me who wants to take good pictures for people to enjoy, and not be eviscerated by a professional critic.
Definitely room for improvement (sets of sets, printing integration), but they seem to be hard at work making this happen. And it looks like they're going to charge $60/year, which seems kind of pricey compared to the competition.
What finally (after a couple days) pushed me over the edge to pay them and subscribe were the fact that they have seamless integration with Creative Commons licenses for your photos (cool-factor points), and an open open API for managing your photos through 3rd-party scripts. With it, I've written a python script that I use to batch-upload and annotate photos. I haven't tried their client with Wine, so I don't know if that option exists for Linux-only users.
Flamebait, eh? What, I post something that might just suggest that the advertisers might be allowed to connect to machines that agree to be connected to, and a bunch of rabid anti-advertising slashdotters decide I'm just trying to bait them.
You guys probably use the exact same logic as the advertisers to excuse your actions when you use open wireless nodes. "They left the door open; they won't mind if I use it. If they didn't want me to use it, they'd secure the network."
How's it different? Instead of a dialog box, their throughput goes to hell for no apparent reason?
As pointed out by numerous slashdotters who don't live in the United States, this won't stop anyone anywhere else in the world. So it's really a non-solution. As I've already said in the parent, I feel it's far worse than just a non-solution.
Anti-advertising meets online freedom--that's a head-exploding notion for slashdotters.
I run a server--and I hate the huge amount of bandwidth that is used for inbound spam. I mean, it really grates me. Spamassassin is working overtime, and sometimes the machine slows considerably. I might need to upgrade hardware just to handle the spam volume. I HATE IT!
HOWEVER, I'm way short of saying Congress or the FTC should step in and do anything about it, because I realize that it won't do any good, and will likely do harm in the long run.
You people who modded me down need to realize that.
Any time the government says someone can't send something over a network, my ears perk right up. Usually this is because some ignorant judge somewhere has misunderstood the technology and made a ruling that makes no sense.
Let's look at it from the Advertiser's perspective, as he talks to the so-called Victim:
A: Hey, can I connect to you? V: Sure. We're connected. A: Cool. If it's not too much trouble, would you display this popup? V: Sure thing! There we go! [pop up] V: HOLY FUCKING SHIT I'M BEING GODDAMMED ABUSED WHAT THE FUCK I DIDN'T EXPECT THIS HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW! WHAT A COMPLETE BLINDSIDING SURPRISE!
Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking this is fine for me because I'm an uberhacker and I can turn off this stupid service or set up a firewall or something, but my grandmother who knows jackall about computers is going to be lost.
And here's what I say in response: tough shit for her. She was the one who ran the computer with the open port, and she should have known better. Or, alternatively, Microsoft should have innovated some basic security to disable this other innovative feature.
In any case, some kind of governmental ruling on the matter is the last thing that I want or is even required. It's just going to be abused later when the rulings are further broadened to include all kinds of network clients. I mean, could this ruling eventually lead to the gaim client being outlawed? You scoff, but look at what the DMCA has been used for!
You listen on a port, you accept a connection, you execute requested commands, you deal with the consequences! Government has no part in this!
Their applet has a color-blind button on it! This absolutely rocks!! I mean, when I can't see the difference between "light" and "vicious" traffic, I'm pretty much screwed. This simple addition made the applet useful to me again!
When building software like this, you do a great service to take us R/G colorblind people into account. We're not as rare as you think! BWHAHAHA!;)
First of all, your (lovely) pictures all look like they came from a digital camera. I would have picked them out blind 100% of the time. That's a drawback.
Well, to be fair, they are low quality jpegs, and don't accurately represent what comes from the camera...so the valid question becomes: could you do it over the same pic as a 300dpi print with no jpeg compression artifacts? As a 600dpi print?
That being said, film really is different than digital and you'll get different results--I don't know what you're using to pick them out of the lineup.
And is the fact that you can tell the difference between film and digital a drawback necessarily?
Secondly, you're suggesting that he spend FIVE TIMES his budget to go in a direction he's not interested in.
I'm merely asking him to reassess.:) If he's set in his decision, he'll ignore me with no harm done. Besides, after deciding not to spend $1300 on a camera, he'll be happier than ever to spend $200!:)
Reading will explain the concepts to you better than screwing around, and careful experimentation (i.e. note taking) will reward you with a FAR better understanding than...screwing around.
I think we're talking about two different kinds of understanding here, sort of book smarts versus practical smarts. Neither is more important than the other, but I know a lot of people here on slashdot don't like to read manuals, and I was trying to cater to that.:)
Furthermore, there is so much processing that goes on behind the scenes in digital that you are seldom sure how much of an image is your work, and how much is due to the electronics.
Shooting in raw mode helps with this. You can process the data however you choose.
but for really learning photography and composition, they're poor tools.
Disagree on the composition part. Instant feedback, at least for me, works way better than waiting for the prints to come back. Additionally, I shoot about 100x as many pictures as I ever would if I had to pay to get film processed. Practice, practice!
Ok, so they're really expensive, but one thing you get with digital is instant feedback to your input. What happens if I try to shoot this at ISO 1600 instead of 100? Or f/3.5 instead of f/22? Or a certain aperture for a certain exposure length? It's easy to get an understanding of the concepts when you see the results right there.
I kept it "cheap" and got a Canon Digital Rebel. (Though you can spend merely 50% more and get a 10D.) It was $900 for the body, $100 for the cheapo stock lens, and $230 for a 1GB flash card.
And I freaking love it!
The main features I wish it had were: 1) ability to sample the custom white balance at a button press instead of needing to take a picture and go through the menu to use it and 2) ability to convert a raw file to a JPEG in the camera.
Not that I'm pro, or anything, but here are some samples:
Go to someplace like mp3.com. You have to spend time finding good stuff, but you can buy an album for 1/3 the cost of an RIAA CD, and the artist pockets ten times the amount of cash.
If you must listen to RIAA music, buy it used! Then they don't get a dime and you're still legal. Sorry to the artists, but you're going to have to use a non-RIAA label if you want any of my cash. (Or set up a tip jar so I can pay you directly.)
This could be made more clear in the Slashdot header...I'm sure it's possible to build a system out of old 486s that could put both of these to shame for load times.
Their tests are largely I/O-bound and video card related, too. It's a system comparison, not a processor comparison. If you have different I/O or video card, you'll get different results.
So who has the faster processor? Who knows. I suggest you buy the system you like the most.
Unless you've had a USB port wired into your cerebral cortex, it's not possible. [...]
It's the music or the image that matters, the specific pattern of bits that a particular tool can use to recreate that music or image is just a byproduct, and has no inherent meaning or value of it's own [...]
It sounds like we're arguing around the point, but not quite at it. I mostly agree with the above, but I'll focus on one part: "It's the music or the image that matters".
In that case, what is the music or image? I argue it's nothing without the interpretive program (mpg123) because, as you say, it's just a meaningless sequence of bits.
So if I give you a bit sequence, and two different programs that take the sequence and one generates music and one generates an image, what is the data in this case?
I argue it's not music, and it's not an image. (Or, I'm willing to argue that it is music and it is an image simultaneously.) Like I said, it's just data until interpreted.
If I take a photograph and email it to you, and you listen to it using some software that does the sort of trivial "conversion" into audio format, that doesn't make my photograph a musical work, or the resultant noise that spews out of your speakers "music."
What if you mail me text that I am meant to read, and then, if I were blind, I used a text-to-speech converter and listened to it as spoken word?
In any case, your suggestion, using the author's intent, doesn't really work here since it's the author himself who is deliberately misdeclaring it. If he makes an image and distributes it as sound, he's going to tell you, "The intent is for this to be listened to."
(This is why you can buy a 4'-tall hand-blown glass tobacco pipe in the shape of a skull or dragon, right? The "intent" is a legal usage.)
Are you going to accuse the artist of misdeclaring his type of data just because his music can be decoded into something else? If so, I'll do the same to everyone whose music I can decode into images (i.e. everyone). They'll say, "That wasn't my intent!" and I, in the same way, will accuse them of misdeclaring it.
Recall that musical piece (I can't remember whose it was) that, when played with a certain visualizer, would display a skull?
Indeed, to claim otherwise is to claim that everything that exists is a musical work because anything can be used to make sound in one way or another. [...]
Once your definitions of individual terms start to include the entire known universe, you know you've made a mistake.
It's the nature of the data, though, because digital data is such a freeform method of storing information which is naturally meaningless to people.
What is 0010001000100010001000100010001? It's without context, and is meaningless without an intermediate program to show it to you in a form fit for human consumption.
If I, the artist, give you a WAV file and a program to play it, and tell you the intent of the data is to be listened to, and then you run it through your IterositerTM and get a picture of the Mona Lisa out of it, where is there any room for fingerpointing?
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhere I hear Vadar saying, "I find your lack of faith disturbing..." ;-)
PGP uses a passphrase, right? What are the chances this guy's passphrase--now remember he's not only dumb enough to make and locally store child porn, but he doesn't even clear out his browser history--what are the chances his passphrase contains more than, say, 40 bits of entropy?
You don't have to break RSA or El Gamal or IDEA or Blowfish or whateverTF he was using...just get his keyring and bruteforce the passphrase. Or, if he's just using the symmetric cipher, do the same thing.
4096-bit RSA over Blowfish is pretty damn strong. Too bad the passphrase is so weak! It's like having that huge shield door from NORAD on your house, except with a full-size doggie door built into the front.
I see what you're saying...but there are several flaws in this reasoning, both theoretical and practical.
(And for the record, when it comes to child pornographers, there can be no punishment too severe.)
Someone mentioned the problems of having a (scuba) tank of compressed air sitting in the hot sun...yes, it can be a problem, obviously, if the air heats and expands above the pressure rating of the tank. I am assuming they thought of this and would make the tank adequately strong. (With scuba, the shop fills your tank to the limit, and then the hot sun gives you another 1000 psi and your burst disc goes. This is less than the five-thirds working pressure they push your tank to when they hydro it--I'm sure the tanks on the cars would have some kind of overpressure relief like a burst disc.)
The French air car article points out, "In the case of an accident with air tank breakage, there would be no explosion or shattering because the tanks are not metallic but made of glass fibre. The tanks would crack longitudinally, and the air would escape, causing a strong buzzing sound with no dangerous factor."
Well.
It's great to know that it's a carbon fiber tank so it won't turn into a screaming cloud of schrapnel, but isn't there another issue at work here?
Now, I don't know exactly where on that tiny car the tank is, but I'd assume it's under the seat someplace.
The volume of that car is what...two cubic meters? What happens when you instantly put 90 cubic meters of air inside it? (Or under it?)
Have a look at this rather larger car for an example. Look, ma! No fragmentation thanks to a steel tank, but all that air introduced to an enclosed space jiffy-pops a car like a cheap paper cup.
I'm more than willing to admit there's more to carbon-fiber tanks than I know. Maybe there's some property that prevents them from releasing all that energy in less than, say, 10 seconds, no matter how badly crushed. But I'm officially skeptical.
They say there's enough energy in a scuba tank to lift a hook-and-ladder fire truck 20 meters in the air. That's exactly the sort of energy I don't want released near me in a short timeframe. Gasoline is good in comparison because it doesn't tend to do this when the tank is ruptured.
Then again, a compressed air tank explosion might be just what I need to get ahead in today's Bay Area traffic. Up yours, Fastrak!
Whoever clones one first! I mean, who's gonna argue with a guy who has a friggin T-REX backing him up?
But let's say that the artist retained copyright himself (herself?). It's my understanding from Bert Krages' book Legal Handbook for Photographers, that images that substantially reproduce the sculpture are derivative works, and therefore are subject to copyright restriction.
Though not entirely clear, Krages seems to be saying merely taking the picture could be a violation of copyright in these cases.
However, if you take a picture that doesn't substantially reproduce the work, then you're probably safe. Let's say you take a picture of the reflection of the Bean, but not the edges. The original work is not even shown, so I'm pretty sure that wouldn't count as a violation.
Also, you could take a picture of the surrounding area where the Bean is only a small part of the picture. This might also be non-infringing.
Of course, it's all a matter of the always-gray interpretation of Fair Use.
Also, look at it from the position of the sculpter. You make a sculpture, and then people start taking picture of it and selling them without you seeing a dime. Sounds a little unfair, right? Well, in this case, it goes back to my original question: who owns the copyright on the Bean?
Try to imagine the future of school text books. You think it's going to only be a bunch of static graphs and equations? Not a chance. It'll be "enter some test numbers here" or "slide this bar back and forth and see what happens to this graph."
And sometimes the hard equation work does get in the way of seeing the concepts, which are no less important. I know a lot of students tend to focus on how to do a math problem instead of what the math problem is, since you get graded on how well you do them!
Pencil and paper? I'll bet that no matter what software the questioner uses, pencil and paper will also be put to good use crunching equations away just like we all have done. You can rest easy knowing that, I hope. Computers are not a replacement for everything, after all.
But to say, "Why not use pencil and paper like I did and forget about this software nonsense?" is to ignore an extremely valuable learning tool that has only recently started to be utilized.
The comments are encouraging for an amateur photographer like me who wants to take good pictures for people to enjoy, and not be eviscerated by a professional critic.
Definitely room for improvement (sets of sets, printing integration), but they seem to be hard at work making this happen. And it looks like they're going to charge $60/year, which seems kind of pricey compared to the competition.
What finally (after a couple days) pushed me over the edge to pay them and subscribe were the fact that they have seamless integration with Creative Commons licenses for your photos (cool-factor points), and an open open API for managing your photos through 3rd-party scripts. With it, I've written a python script that I use to batch-upload and annotate photos. I haven't tried their client with Wine, so I don't know if that option exists for Linux-only users.
Wait--what was the headline, again?
Flamebait, eh? What, I post something that might just suggest that the advertisers might be allowed to connect to machines that agree to be connected to, and a bunch of rabid anti-advertising slashdotters decide I'm just trying to bait them.
You guys probably use the exact same logic as the advertisers to excuse your actions when you use open wireless nodes. "They left the door open; they won't mind if I use it. If they didn't want me to use it, they'd secure the network."
How's it different? Instead of a dialog box, their throughput goes to hell for no apparent reason?
As pointed out by numerous slashdotters who don't live in the United States, this won't stop anyone anywhere else in the world. So it's really a non-solution. As I've already said in the parent, I feel it's far worse than just a non-solution.
Anti-advertising meets online freedom--that's a head-exploding notion for slashdotters.
I run a server--and I hate the huge amount of bandwidth that is used for inbound spam. I mean, it really grates me. Spamassassin is working overtime, and sometimes the machine slows considerably. I might need to upgrade hardware just to handle the spam volume. I HATE IT!
HOWEVER, I'm way short of saying Congress or the FTC should step in and do anything about it, because I realize that it won't do any good, and will likely do harm in the long run.
You people who modded me down need to realize that.
Any time the government says someone can't send something over a network, my ears perk right up. Usually this is because some ignorant judge somewhere has misunderstood the technology and made a ruling that makes no sense.
Let's look at it from the Advertiser's perspective, as he talks to the so-called Victim:
A: Hey, can I connect to you?
V: Sure. We're connected.
A: Cool. If it's not too much trouble, would you display this popup?
V: Sure thing! There we go!
[pop up]
V: HOLY FUCKING SHIT I'M BEING GODDAMMED ABUSED WHAT THE FUCK I DIDN'T EXPECT THIS HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW! WHAT A COMPLETE BLINDSIDING SURPRISE!
Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking this is fine for me because I'm an uberhacker and I can turn off this stupid service or set up a firewall or something, but my grandmother who knows jackall about computers is going to be lost.
And here's what I say in response: tough shit for her. She was the one who ran the computer with the open port, and she should have known better. Or, alternatively, Microsoft should have innovated some basic security to disable this other innovative feature.
In any case, some kind of governmental ruling on the matter is the last thing that I want or is even required. It's just going to be abused later when the rulings are further broadened to include all kinds of network clients. I mean, could this ruling eventually lead to the gaim client being outlawed? You scoff, but look at what the DMCA has been used for!
You listen on a port, you accept a connection, you execute requested commands, you deal with the consequences! Government has no part in this!
When building software like this, you do a great service to take us R/G colorblind people into account. We're not as rare as you think! BWHAHAHA! ;)
"I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy R2: let the Clippy win."
"Laugh-a while you can, Monkey Boy!"
Never wage war on two fronts at once!
They should start by just eliminating the north magnetic pole.
HAHAHAH! No one uses hands anymore to measure distance! How ARCANE!
We use feet.
I say we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Well, to be fair, they are low quality jpegs, and don't accurately represent what comes from the camera...so the valid question becomes: could you do it over the same pic as a 300dpi print with no jpeg compression artifacts? As a 600dpi print?
That being said, film really is different than digital and you'll get different results--I don't know what you're using to pick them out of the lineup.
And is the fact that you can tell the difference between film and digital a drawback necessarily?
Secondly, you're suggesting that he spend FIVE TIMES his budget to go in a direction he's not interested in.
I'm merely asking him to reassess. :) If he's set in his decision, he'll ignore me with no harm done. Besides, after deciding not to spend $1300 on a camera, he'll be happier than ever to spend $200! :)
Reading will explain the concepts to you better than screwing around, and careful experimentation (i.e. note taking) will reward you with a FAR better understanding than...screwing around.
I think we're talking about two different kinds of understanding here, sort of book smarts versus practical smarts. Neither is more important than the other, but I know a lot of people here on slashdot don't like to read manuals, and I was trying to cater to that. :)
Furthermore, there is so much processing that goes on behind the scenes in digital that you are seldom sure how much of an image is your work, and how much is due to the electronics.
Shooting in raw mode helps with this. You can process the data however you choose.
but for really learning photography and composition, they're poor tools.
Disagree on the composition part. Instant feedback, at least for me, works way better than waiting for the prints to come back. Additionally, I shoot about 100x as many pictures as I ever would if I had to pay to get film processed. Practice, practice!
I kept it "cheap" and got a Canon Digital Rebel. (Though you can spend merely 50% more and get a 10D.) It was $900 for the body, $100 for the cheapo stock lens, and $230 for a 1GB flash card.
And I freaking love it!
The main features I wish it had were: 1) ability to sample the custom white balance at a button press instead of needing to take a picture and go through the menu to use it and 2) ability to convert a raw file to a JPEG in the camera.
Not that I'm pro, or anything, but here are some samples:
Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Oh no! I guess I should have said "go to someplace like mp3.com" instead of "go to mp3.com". Oh wait, I did. Sheesh!
If you must listen to RIAA music, buy it used! Then they don't get a dime and you're still legal. Sorry to the artists, but you're going to have to use a non-RIAA label if you want any of my cash. (Or set up a tip jar so I can pay you directly.)
Their tests are largely I/O-bound and video card related, too. It's a system comparison, not a processor comparison. If you have different I/O or video card, you'll get different results.
So who has the faster processor? Who knows. I suggest you buy the system you like the most.
B) When the bill comes, say, "What credit card? I never signed up for a credit card."
C) Enjoy your new geek toys.
It sounds like we're arguing around the point, but not quite at it. I mostly agree with the above, but I'll focus on one part: "It's the music or the image that matters".
In that case, what is the music or image? I argue it's nothing without the interpretive program (mpg123) because, as you say, it's just a meaningless sequence of bits.
So if I give you a bit sequence, and two different programs that take the sequence and one generates music and one generates an image, what is the data in this case?
I argue it's not music, and it's not an image. (Or, I'm willing to argue that it is music and it is an image simultaneously.) Like I said, it's just data until interpreted.
What if you mail me text that I am meant to read, and then, if I were blind, I used a text-to-speech converter and listened to it as spoken word?
In any case, your suggestion, using the author's intent, doesn't really work here since it's the author himself who is deliberately misdeclaring it. If he makes an image and distributes it as sound, he's going to tell you, "The intent is for this to be listened to."
(This is why you can buy a 4'-tall hand-blown glass tobacco pipe in the shape of a skull or dragon, right? The "intent" is a legal usage.)
Are you going to accuse the artist of misdeclaring his type of data just because his music can be decoded into something else? If so, I'll do the same to everyone whose music I can decode into images (i.e. everyone). They'll say, "That wasn't my intent!" and I, in the same way, will accuse them of misdeclaring it.
Recall that musical piece (I can't remember whose it was) that, when played with a certain visualizer, would display a skull?
It's the nature of the data, though, because digital data is such a freeform method of storing information which is naturally meaningless to people.
What is 0010001000100010001000100010001? It's without context, and is meaningless without an intermediate program to show it to you in a form fit for human consumption.
If I, the artist, give you a WAV file and a program to play it, and tell you the intent of the data is to be listened to, and then you run it through your IterositerTM and get a picture of the Mona Lisa out of it, where is there any room for fingerpointing?